Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Ok, then I must be out of my mind. You made an assertion and now you refuse to back it up with fact.

Women aren't allowed to protest men's oogling? Did she press charges?

She didn't just "protest." She screamed pervert to try to embarrass and shame him. Apparently being attracted to and looking at someone's boobs when they pretty much have them out in public makes you a pervert. What a bunch of BS.

If a man was walking around in a speedo that didn't leave much to the imagination, and people looked, would that make them all perverts too?

Here we go again. We are all supposed to pretend that we do not have sexual urges or that we are not attracted to each other's parts. We are not supposed to ever look (even for a second) when someone has their parts out in public. Give me a *********** break. This what I mean by it going too far.

Look as much as you want. Just don't be surprised when someone calls you a pervert for oogling, and if you keep it up, presses charges.

If you have such uncontrollable lusts that it keeps you from treating women as human beings instead of objects of your desires, might I suggest you treat yourself to 20 minutes (or how ever long it takes you) of internet porn before you venture outside?

Or you can just do what everyone does and steal some glances, apologizing profusely if you get caught.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

She didn't just "protest." She screamed pervert to try to embarrass and shame him. Apparently being attracted to and looking at someone's boobs when they pretty much have them out in public makes you a pervert. What a bunch of BS.

Yeah, a 40 year old man thinking he's in his full right staring a way at a teenager's breasts without her full consent is probably a pervert or slightly delusional.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Here we go again. We are all supposed to pretend that we do not have sexual urges or that we are not attracted to each other's parts. We are not supposed to ever look (even for a second) when someone has their parts out in public. Give me a *********** break. This what I mean by it going too far.

What a huge strawman.

IMO the 40-year old in the anecdote is entitled to be as sexually excited as he pleases. He isn't however entitled to act based on his unilateral sexual excitement and he certainly isn't entitled to "slut shame" a young woman for dressing as she pleases, and then complaining that she has attracted unwanted sexual attention.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

It would be right and proper to do so, yes. Or he can try to be private about it and simply glance, and then apologize he she catches him.

ETA: This really has nothing to do with #metoo, but it's something we guys need to talk about.

Even if your opinion was correct, she did not give him time to apologize. She yelled pervert to try to embarrass and shame him. You think she deserves an apology after that? I'll say it again and again. What a bunch of ********.

It does have to do with #metoo because men are being accused of being perverts and accused of assault for a bunch of nonsense like this.

Even if your opinion was correct, she did not give him time to apologize. She yelled pervert to try to embarrass and shame him. You think she deserves an apology after that? I'll say it again and again. What a bunch of ********.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

How about no one was at fault (at first anyway) and had nothing to apologize for because no one did anything wrong? Nothing wrong until she tried to shame him by calling him a pervert.

No, that's not correct. He should have resisted the urge to oogle her breasts. They weren't on display for him, and if he had any sense, he would have known that. He was clearly at fault, and doubly so when he decided to slut-shame her.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

No, that's not correct. He should have resisted the urge to oogle her breasts. They weren't on display for him, and if he had any sense, he would have known that. He was clearly at fault, and doubly so when he decided to slut-shame her.

Even if your opinion was correct, she did not give him time to apologize. She yelled pervert to try to embarrass and shame him. You think she deserves an apology after that? I'll say it again and again. What a bunch of ********.

I think this gets to the heart of the "problem" that the #MeToo is trying to address.

There is a sizeable proportion of the male population who thinks it's perfectly fine to gawp at a woman's breasts because they are "on show" and "she was clearly asking for it" and will act indignant when instead of meekly accepting unwanted attention, the woman in question is vocal in her criticism. Maybe this kind of behaviour is entirely fine and proper, but the #MeToo movement seems to show that there are an awful lot of women (and many men) out there who think that it isn't.

No doubt there are women in this world who dress to flaunt their sexuality and who appreciate any and all attention that they receive as a result. The fault IMO is to assume that many, most or all women feel that way and to place the onus on the women to deal with the consequences of unwanted and unwarranted attention and not the men to behave in a reasonable fashion.

Again, many men seem to think that "consent" is the default and it is granted until it is explicitly taken away. My personal view is the opposite.

edited to add......

Maybe there's a cultural dimension to this as well. In many things, a lot of European countries have a default position that things are not permitted, unless they are specifically allowed. Without turning this into a gun thread, in many countries the right to own a gun is denied unless you specifically demonstrate that you are fit to own one. OTOH in the U.S. the opposite is true, you have a right to own a gun and it's up to the state to demonstrate that you are unfit to own one. I may be over-reaching here but maybe there's an element of that here.

Those who are complaining about #MeToo are more libertarian and want to be allowed to do whatever they want, unless it is denied to their satisfaction - "Consent" is assumed until it is withdrawn. Those who tend to support #MeToo assume that they are not allowed to do things unless they are told that it is allowed.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

All this reminds me of an incident that happened right outside my shop one sunny afternoon.

Two young women (late teens early 20's) were sitting on a footpath bench, chatting. Both were wearing, shall we say, very revealing tops with a neckline that plunged almost to their belly buttons. A man (white male in his 40's as it happens) walks past, looks down at them and gets an eye-full. As he walks away, one of the women stands up and yells something like...

"What are you *********** gawking at, pervert!" The guy stopped in his tracks, turned around and walked right back to her, looking straight down her cleavage. "Only looking at what you're asking me to Honey! If you don't like men looking down your blouse, wear a *********** polo-neck!" She was stunned - he turned and walked away.

I don't know, but perhaps that 40-year old might pause next time he's tempted to "ogle". I think it highlights the difference in attitude between the man in the anecdote and me. He assumed that those young ladies were dressed in that way in order to have 40-year old men ogle them - I wouldn't have made that assumption because:

They were dressed that way please themselves, not me

Even if they were attempting to attract "ogling" attention, then it wouldn't be from the likes of me

Only those people that the young ladies want to notice should notice? That can't be right, that makes no sense.

I'm really sorry, but if she's showing it, in public, then I'm looking. End of story. I'm not grabbing, I'm not flashing, I'm not in her space, but I'm looking at the cleavage because I like boobs and she's made it very clear that hers are for public consumption.

The game of wearing a low cut top and getting all offended when the eye of an adult human male is drawn to an obvious secondary characteristic and then screaming 'gotcha' is not one that should be indulged.

Only those people that the young ladies want to notice should notice? That can't be right, that makes no sense.

I'm really sorry, but if she's showing it, in public, then I'm looking. End of story. I'm not grabbing, I'm not flashing, I'm not in her space, but I'm looking at the cleavage because I like boobs and she's made it very clear that hers are for public consumption.

How has she done so? By wearing a low cut top? Is your car for public consumption if you leave it with the window rolled down, or is it still stealing if someone takes it?

Originally Posted by 3point14

The game of wearing a low cut top and getting all offended when the eye of an adult human male is drawn to an obvious secondary characteristic and then screaming 'gotcha' is not one that should be indulged.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

How has she done so? By wearing a low cut top? Is your car for public consumption if you leave it with the window rolled down, or is it still stealing if someone takes it?

And all the rape victims should have not worn short skirts, right?

Again, give me a *********** break. You are not taking anything from her by looking. You did not invade her personal space like happens during rape. Equating looking with rape. What a bunch of nonsense.

Only those people that the young ladies want to notice should notice? That can't be right, that makes no sense.

There's a big difference IMO between noticing and staring. Has the young lady sunbathing topless on the beach given you permission to stand over her staring at her breasts ? Personally I think not, YMMV

Originally Posted by 3point14

I'm really sorry, but if she's showing it, in public, then I'm looking. End of story. I'm not grabbing, I'm not flashing, I'm not in her space, but I'm looking at the cleavage because I like boobs and she's made it very clear that hers are for public consumption.

She has ? I guess that's where we differ.

Originally Posted by 3point14

The game of wearing a low cut top and getting all offended when the eye of an adult human male is drawn to an obvious secondary characteristic and then screaming 'gotcha' is not one that should be indulged.

Then perhaps we should have some kind of "clothing code" so that women know how to dress to avoid unwanted attention of the type that this woman seems to have had.

I suppose that I'm "lucky" to have been sufficiently unattractive and to have dressed sufficiently modestly never to have attracted attention of this kind (wanted or unwanted) - or if I have, I haven't noticed.

Look as much as you want. Just don't be surprised when someone calls you a pervert for oogling, and if you keep it up, presses charges.

Can one really be prosecuted for simply looking at a woman? Not stalking, not following, not going out of one's way, simply looking as one goes past at what's been displayed?

If that's the case, that's a bit mental.

Quote:

If you have such uncontrollable lusts that it keeps you from treating women as human beings instead of objects of your desires, might I suggest you treat yourself to 20 minutes (or how ever long it takes you) of internet porn before you venture outside?

No. Looking at an attractive body that's been displayed by the owner of said body does not, under any circumstances, equate to 'uncontrollable lusts'. Anyone who thinks that simply looking at an obviously displayed cleavage equates to 'uncontrollable lust' needs their measuring guages re calibrated.

Quote:

Or you can just do what everyone does and steal some glances, apologizing profusely if you get caught.

What? No. If it's out in public, one can look. Expectations of privacy are greatly diminished in public space.

Again, give me a *********** break. You are not taking anything from her by looking. You did not invade her personal space like happens during rape. Equating looking with rape. What a bunch of nonsense.

I didn't equate looking with rape. It only appears that way when you completely ignore what I was replying to.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Can one really be prosecuted for simply looking at a woman? Not stalking, not following, not going out of one's way, simply looking as one goes past at what's been displayed?

If that's the case, that's a bit mental.

Example: the Peeping Tom. He's only looking, but he's liable to criminal charges.

Originally Posted by 3point14

No. Looking at an attractive body that's been displayed by the owner of said body does not, under any circumstances, equate to 'uncontrollable lusts'. Anyone who thinks that simply looking at an obviously displayed cleavage equates to 'uncontrollable lust' needs their measuring guages re calibrated.

It's apparently uncontrollable to some people. Others don't really have a problem recognizing that women who dress in a way you consider provocative or enticing isn't necessarily putting her goods out for public consumption.

Originally Posted by 3point14

What? No. If it's out in public, one can look. Expectations of privacy are greatly diminished in public space.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

There's a big difference IMO between noticing and staring. Has the young lady sunbathing topless on the beach given you permission to stand over her staring at her breasts ? Personally I think not, YMMV

I am very confused about the concept that one can show flesh in public but others can't look. I'm also wondering how one would legally define the difference between 'noticing' and 'staring'.

Quote:

She has ? I guess that's where we differ.

I'm really struggling with the concept of displaying flesh such that the act of noticing it is a perverted act bordering on the criminal. People, in public, can look at other people in public.

Quote:

Then perhaps we should have some kind of "clothing code" so that women know how to dress to avoid unwanted attention of the type that this woman seems to have had.

That's fairly easy. Wear what you like. Nobody has permission to touch you in any way without your consent, even if you're naked. If you're naked, however, expect the world to look.

Quote:

I suppose that I'm "lucky" to have been sufficiently unattractive and to have dressed sufficiently modestly never to have attracted attention of this kind (wanted or unwanted) - or if I have, I haven't noticed.

Different people have different sex drives. Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic and the male -- and female - eye will be drqwn towards a prominent display. I like civilisation, but let's not try to pretend we're not mammals.

All joking and hyperbole aside, a lot of religious sects do have the concept of "modest dress" which should be adopted in order to prevent inflaming the ardour of men. Standards vary hugely from one extreme represented my the Burkha to less extreme versions which would probably have met the uniform code in my school in the 1980's (skirts at or below the knee, no tight trousers, only one button undone on a blouse, no clothing to be too tight).

I suppose those dress codes were formulated for a reason - men (and possibly other women). Maybe we have to accept that women really do have to be the adults here and that men's urges are literally uncontrollable . If a woman wants to avoid unwanted attention then it's up to her to dress and behave in a way so as not to attract it.

The same, I suppose, also applies to men who don't wish to attract attention from other men.....

Example: the Peeping Tom. He's only looking, but he's liable to criminal charges.

By looking into someone's house. Not at someone walking down the street.

Quote:

It's apparently uncontrollable to some people. Others don't really have a problem recognizing that women who dress in a way you consider provocative or enticing isn't necessarily putting her goods out for public consumption.

By 'public consuption' do you mean 'so that people can see', then yes, I do. Anything one displays in public is for public consumption. by definition. Again, not touching, not following, just looking.

Quote:

Try it on a top-less beach.

We weren't talking about a topless beach. I imagine the rules are different on a topless beach, but that wasn't the scenario we were discussing.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Well, I suppose it's a good thing that none of the people who lost their jobs because of #metoo were accused of glancing at a stranger's boobs sideways while passing them on the street.

This is true. It's unfortunate that this discussion is being held in a thread about #metoo, as it has nothing to do with it. It appears that some posters in the thread aren't up to speed with what #metoo is.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.